[75678] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Eric A. Hall)
Sat Nov 20 09:41:44 2004
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 09:40:56 -0500
From: "Eric A. Hall" <ehall@ehsco.com>
To: Alex Bligh <alex@alex.org.uk>
Cc: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>,
Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>,
Jeroen Massar <jeroen@unfix.org>, NANOG list <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <65A1350563D63FE472B83CD4@[192.168.100.25]>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On 11/20/2004 8:18 AM, Alex Bligh wrote:
> But I'm not sure you'd like it applied to the internet. Firstly, in
> essence, PSTN uses static routes for interprovider routing (not quite true,
> but nearly - if you add a new prefix everyone else has to build it into
> their table on all switches). Secondly, IIRC porting works in the UK
> something like - call delivered to switch of operator who owns the block,
> marked as ported number, lookup in central porting database (one for all
> operators), operator port prefix put on dialed number, call sent back out
> all the way to interconnect, enters new operator network, goes to switch
> managing ports, further signalling info added to make call go to the
> correct local switch, call goes to correct local switch, dross removed,
> call terminated.
Sounds like DNS.
We also get semi-annual drive-by proposals to stick the routing info into
DNS, of course.
--
Eric A. Hall http://www.ehsco.com/
Internet Core Protocols http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/
